Radman v. Harold

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling based not on exercise of discretion but on premise that medical witness was disqualified from expressing expert opinion solely because he was not of same specialty as defendant
• allowing an internal medicine specialist to express an opinion on the performance of a hysterectomy even though he had never performed one
• “[W]e have never treated expert medical testimony any dif ferently than other types of expert testimony.”
• internal medicine specialist held to have necessary qualifications to express opinion as to the alleged negligence of a gynecologist-surgeon
• “[T]he admissibility of expert testimony is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court and its action will seldom constitute a ground for reversal.”
• “[T]he trial court’s determination [regarding expert qualification] ... may be reversed if it is founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).